No it's not a toolkit problem, you have a misunderstanding of what specifications are supposed to be. If the existing spec doesn't work for them then you can't expect them to support it. The process of making a spec or standard is not about forcing other projects to follow suit, it's about finding mutual common ground that is agreed upon by everybody.
What you are describing is a toolkit problem. GTK and Qt are not built on top of the X toolkit intrinsics, which is why apps built with them often have poor or non-existent X resource support. Toolkits designed around Xt have this stuff baked in.
Also I'm not asking anyone to support anything. I'm asking you to know the facts first if you're going to bash a specific piece of technology for lacking functionality (which it doesn't, really).
X11/Xorg bashing is in vouge, for some odd reason, despite it working pretty well for most *nix users. If you want alternatives like Wayland and GTK to succeed, then contribute to those and make them into a desirable upgrade path for X11 server and toolkit users.
Frankly, you have not presented any good arguments that would change my mind on any issue so far.
>GTK and Qt are not built on top of the X toolkit intrinsics
That changes nothing, they have no reason to base themselves on Xt if that doesn't work well for them, which it doesn't for a number of other reasons. Also X was intentionally designed to support multiple toolkits using any underlying library they want, so the designers definitely didn't intend for everyone to use Xt.
>X11/Xorg bashing is in vouge, for some odd reason, despite it working pretty well for most *nix users.
There's no bashing here. These are just the facts. It was a fine thing for the time it was created, it's now obsolete and doesn't work that well anymore. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. That's the way it goes with things.
>If you want alternatives like Wayland and GTK to succeed
This is a bad way to take the conversation. I don't really care what succeeds. There's no reason to get that invested in any particular solution aimed towards something so fleeting (and lacking in rewards) as the attention of a bunch of random Linux distributions.
But I would say those things have already been largely successful at what they set out to do.
>you have not presented any good arguments that would change my mind on any issue so far.
I don't really care about changing your mind either. If you want to change your mind, that's completely your decision to make. I can only point you towards facts that may illustrate other perspectives.